In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The True Meaning of the 2nd Amendment
Clayhill
Member Posts: 63 ✭✭
The 2nd Amendment seems to be endlessly debated without the true meaning ever being mentioned. The Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the citizens remained on an equal footing with any military force a foriegn or dictatorial government could field. It isn't about hunting, home defense, the National Guard, or target shooting. Unfortunately our politically correct society has forced gun owners to never say this for fear of being called "domestic terrorists" or "crazies". Muskets, the main military weapons of the colonial days, were specialized military weapons no more used for hunting than the modern full auto assualt rifles. With the modern weapon systems available to today's armies, the idea of citizens with rifles making a difference is a little outdated. But it is still our right. When I am faced with an anti-gun argument I give this opinion and the heck with being PC.
Thomas Jefferson would ask why we aren't allowed to own full auto weapons. While I am happy with my semi-auto assualt rifle, we can't allow the new political group in Washington to place more rescrictions on this precious freedom the writers of the constitution left us.
Thomas Jefferson would ask why we aren't allowed to own full auto weapons. While I am happy with my semi-auto assualt rifle, we can't allow the new political group in Washington to place more rescrictions on this precious freedom the writers of the constitution left us.
Comments
A man fighting to regain his liberty has absolutely nothing to lose. It matters not if his only weapon is a butter knife; he represents a formidable opponent.
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."
The 2nd Amendment seems to be endlessly debated without the true meaning ever being mentioned. The Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the citizens remained on an equal footing with any military force a foriegn or dictatorial government could field. It isn't about hunting, home defense, the National Guard, or target shooting. Unfortunately our politically correct society has forced gun owners to never say this for fear of being called "domestic terrorists" or "crazies". Muskets, the main military weapons of the colonial days, were specialized military weapons no more used for hunting than the modern full auto assualt rifles. With the modern weapon systems available to today's armies, the idea of citizens with rifles making a difference is a little outdated. But it is still our right. When I am faced with an anti-gun argument I give this opinion and the heck with being PC.
Thomas Jefferson would ask why we aren't allowed to own full auto weapons. While I am happy with my semi-auto assualt rifle, we can't allow the new political group in Washington to place more rescrictions on this precious freedom the writers of the constitution left us.
Amen brother, you "get it"!
Speak for yourself, fool.[:(!]
Good.
Some people, like this poster, NEED to be disarmed. They do not have the courage NOR the understanding to use the weapons they own as the Founders intended.
Wake up !, 1 executive order from The Living Messiah and its all over, by the time it gets overturned we will be throwing rocks. Government approved size and shaped rocks [8D]
I do not understand why you would be throwing rocks. You have already made it clear that you love the Government and the government will take care of you. You do not throw rocks at something you like......correct ?????
Now for a reality check...if you really are unhappy with the government, why would you be brought to a level of throwing rocks when we have the right to throw lead ?????
Your way of thinking is totally screwed up !
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You should read these words slowly, over and over again........maybe even 10 times a day until you realize the truth......because until then you are and will always be a Traitor !
The Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the citizens remained on an equal footing with any military force a foriegn or dictatorial government could field. It isn't about hunting, home defense, the National Guard, or target shooting.
Actually, the ratifiers did intend that the second amendment was for purposes of military defense, it was also intended to be about hunting, target shooting, etc. If you read the commentary of the time, you will see that when discussing the right to bear arms and the new government and proposed constitution, the explanations as to why it was necessary often involved a list of reasons, ie standing army concerns, the right to hunt, to use arms to hunt, personal defense, etc. The second amendment is not just about protection against standing armies. Properly understood, the amendment prohibits the federal government from involving itself in matters dealing with firearms (see second amendment). Whether it is for duck hunting, target shooting, personal defense, national and or state defense, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to involve itself in these matters. The second amendment prohibits the federal government from dealing with gun issues, period.
Muskets, the main military weapons of the colonial days, were specialized military weapons no more used for hunting than the modern full auto assualt rifles.
Really? If they werent using muskets, then what types of weapons did they use for hunting? What was the difference between these "specialized military" flintlocks, and the flintlocks that were used by those shooting game?
Sounds like you will stand and fight....We need more people like you !
We need to do it now in our life time, because our kids are being trained in school to "roll over" and let the Government take take of everything.
quote:Originally posted by melkor
Wake up !, 1 executive order from The Living Messiah and its all over, by the time it gets overturned we will be throwing rocks. Government approved size and shaped rocks [8D]
I do not understand why you would be throwing rocks. You have already made it clear that you love the Government and the government will take care of you. You do not throw rocks at something you like......correct ?????
Now for a reality check...if you really are unhappy with the government, why would you be brought to a level of throwing rocks when we have the right to throw lead ?????
Your way of thinking is totally screwed up !
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You should read these words slowly, over and over again........maybe even 10 times a day until you realize the truth......because until then you are and will always be a Traitor !
Had to add a little more emphasis.......
Some forget that every other place in the constitution where it says "the people" it covers an individual right. It's no different in the second - "the people" still infers INDIVIDUALS have these rights.
Some forget that every other place in the constitution where it says "the people" it covers an individual right. It's no different in the second - "the people" still infers INDIVIDUALS have these rights.
That might be the theory now. But when the constitution was written "the people" did not refer to an individual. "the people" referred to the citizens, as a whole, of a state. In the original preamble of the constitution, instead of "we the people of the United States", it read "we the people of" and went on to list each state that was ratifying the constitution. Those who wrote the constitution decided on the former, because they recognized that other states would join the Union. Instead of havinbg to amend the constitution whenever a new state joined, they decided "we the people of the united states", would cover any states that entered the Union after the constitution was ratified.
The constitution RARELY refers to individuals, and when it does, it refers to the individual as "person" or "persons".
When reading the Founding Fathers comments regarding the right to bear arms, NONE I've read dealt with any other point except the citizens right to own firearms as a last defense against tyrants. If anyone has a Founding Father quote mentioning hunting in regard to the 2nd amendment I'd love to hear it.
As to muskets..... I'm sure many here already know a musket was a smooth bore weapon designed to accept a bayonet. The barrels had a smooth bore to allow rapid loading by troops in a firing line. You could load them with shot and use them as a shotgun, but their main and best purpose was as a military weapon. Rifles, slow loading with rifled barrels, were the guns used for hunting. Also, many states encouraged citizens in their militia instructions to own muskets in ADDITION to regular hunting weapons to avoid shortages of weapons if the militia was called out. Americans are always pictured as coonskin capped irregulars with rifles, but American military leaders mainly wanted musket armed formations of troops to fight battles. Even when fighting Native Americans the majority of troops carried muskets with bayonets.
I think hunting should also be a guaranteed right. But I still argue that the 2nd Amendment is intended to keep American citizens as a force to be reckoned with when dealing with tyrants.
That is an interesting point. Washington lost every battle for years.
The Militia fighters, using rifled long-arms, kept the British off balance by their long range shooting and guerilla tactics. They managed well enough to allow Washington to lose battle after battle .yet allow the War to continue, until he got his head out of his az and actually adopt some other tactic then march men across an open field into the muskets of the enemy.
Washington, by the way, hated the Militia...
I would be happy to elaborate further.....
When reading the Founding Fathers comments regarding the right to bear arms, NONE I've read dealt with any other point except the citizens right to own firearms as a last defense against tyrants.
Well you obviously have not read enough. You might want to look to other sources besides all of those books and websites that extract certain quotes to fit whatever agenda is being promoted. A few "comments" from Jefferson, Henry, Madison, Mason, Hamilton, etc, does not a constitution make.
The real "founders" were the hundreds, if not thousands of people involved with the ratification of the constitution. While Jefferson, Madison, etc, had ideas about what the constitution should be, MANY of those ideas were rejected by those involved with ratification.
You might be well served if you were to look at the state conventions, the federal conventions, the debates on these issues, both political and public. If you do such reading, you will see that for many, the right to bear arms was not only about the militia, but also about hunting, and personal protection.
If you do not want to go through such an exercise, simply read the second amendment, and the constitution. The amendment does not say "military type" weapons, it says SPECIFICALLY that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Furthermore, no where does it say in the body of the constitution that the feds have authority or power to deal with ANY issues as to who and what guns can be had by the people. If you understand the "founders" and their intent properly, you would realize that even without the second amendment the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right for that matter.
I do not understand why fellas like you INSIST on spouting the nonsense that "sporting arms" are not protected by the second amendment, or that the "intent" of the founders were to protect military type weapons. I cringe whenever I see such nonsense, not only because it is historically and constitutionally inacurate, but because it seems real easy, using that logic, to ban any gun not designed for military use. Any gun grabber could use the second amendment to ban any other gun besides military weapons.
It is very simple: The constitution prohibits the federal government from involving itself with ANY firearm issue.
And thanks for the info on the Revolutionary guns- I am ignorant on such topics. I assumed sporting and military type weapons were virtually the same. I own and shoot a Flintlock, but only because it gets me another season to hunt whitetails-I am not really interested in the different types of firearms of the flintlock era- I just assumed they were all basically the same.
I will tell you why THIS 'fella' does this ;
I want the 'sporting use' guys worried about it, too.
Bluntly...it is propaganda, pure and simple. But it is the sort of propaganda that would get sorted out real quick, after the shooting is over.
In 1952 the SCOTUS ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents must cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
quote:Originally posted by Clayhill
The Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the citizens remained on an equal footing with any military force a foriegn or dictatorial government could field. It isn't about hunting, home defense, the National Guard, or target shooting.
Actually, the ratifiers did intend that the second amendment was for purposes of military defense, it was also intended to be about hunting, target shooting, etc. If you read the commentary of the time, you will see that when discussing the right to bear arms and the new government and proposed constitution, the explanations as to why it was necessary often involved a list of reasons, ie standing army concerns, the right to hunt, to use arms to hunt, personal defense, etc. The second amendment is not just about protection against standing armies. Properly understood, the amendment prohibits the federal government from involving itself in matters dealing with firearms (see second amendment). Whether it is for duck hunting, target shooting, personal defense, national and or state defense, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to involve itself in these matters. The second amendment prohibits the federal government from dealing with gun issues, period.
Muskets, the main military weapons of the colonial days, were specialized military weapons no more used for hunting than the modern full auto assualt rifles.
Really? If they werent using muskets, then what types of weapons did they use for hunting? What was the difference between these "specialized military" flintlocks, and the flintlocks that were used by those shooting game?
Salzo, maybe this has been addressed, I don't have time to check.
Muskets used by the infantry were smoothbore, had limited range and suffered inaccuracy. Hunting rifles had rifled barrels, were very accurate at long range, and the Continental army used them to great advantage, i.e. sniping British commanders who were thought to be in relative safety behind the skirmish line. Haha![:D] Got 'im![xx(] But most of the men, those on the skirmish line, used smoothbore muskets at close range.
Now, when those rights are misused/abused to take the constitutional rights of another person, using firearms of not, it is a crime that should be severely punished.
the way I read it, the 2nd amendment allows common citizens to own all types of firearms free of any tax, registration or regulation. That includes everything short of nukes, if you can afford it.
Now, when those rights are misused/abused to take the constitutional rights of another person, using firearms of not, it is a crime that should be severely punished.
You are spot on.[^]
The second amendment is 100% self defence, against enemies both foreign and DOMISTIC, individually and collectively.
But in the REAL world we have to deal with those who do not see it this way, and/or have slightly different opinions on this subject. In other words we do not have the authority to 'make it so'.
So, where do we go from here to deal with the DOMISTIC enemy we face?????????[:(!]
An important thing to remember is that the war began when the british sent troops to confiscate cannon (heavy weaponry of the period). So, it is at least clear that they wanted following generations to have "heavy weaponry of the period".
I think you had better reread your history. They were to confiscate 'muskets, powder, and shot' as well. And they did so in the cities they occupied!
Much like what is happening in the 'cities' today![V]
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
An important thing to remember is that the war began when the british sent troops to confiscate cannon (heavy weaponry of the period). So, it is at least clear that they wanted following generations to have "heavy weaponry of the period".
I think you had better reread your history. They were to confiscate 'muskets, powder, and shot' as well. And they did so in the cities they occupied!
Much like what is happening in the 'cities' today![V]
Please don't attempt to educate me on history Jim Rau. You Are the one who gets an "F" in this department. Of course they were there to confiscate anything weapons related. Duh! It was the cannon that was the primary concern, for the British march to Lexington and Concord. They failed however. As usual, in your case, my point sailed high.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
An important thing to remember is that the war began when the british sent troops to confiscate cannon (heavy weaponry of the period). So, it is at least clear that they wanted following generations to have "heavy weaponry of the period".
I think you had better reread your history. They were to confiscate 'muskets, powder, and shot' as well. And they did so in the cities they occupied!
Much like what is happening in the 'cities' today![V]
Please don't attempt to educate me on history Jim Rau. You Are the one who gets an "F" in this department. Of course they were there to confiscate anything weapons related. Duh! It was the cannon that was the primary concern, for the British march to Lexington and Concord. They failed however. As usual, in your case, my point sailed high.
To be expected I guess. Nothing from the peanut galley but the elitist insults and derogatory remarks.[;)]
For your info I made the remarks on the locked thread to see how Shane and you would respond. And once again you guys proved my point,
YOU CAN DISH IT OUT, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE IT!!![^][}:)]
As far as insults, I find your belief(spelling Jim, spelling) system beneath contempt, so understand that I am holding back the majority of how I feel when I read your drivel.
BTW, a statement of fact is NOT an insult or personal attack. It is your thin skin that disallows you from the comprehension of that fact.<---Not an insult
To be expected I guess. Nothing from the peanut galley but the elitist insults and derogatory remarks.[;)]
For your info I made the remarks on the locked thread to see how Shane and you would respond. And once again you guys proved my point,
YOU CAN DISH IT OUT, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE IT!!![^][}:)]
A definition of trolling. Congrats on the confession.
I really saw no reason why that thread was locked, other than picken must have been feeling pity for you after Don slapped you silly with ideology. I didn't even see anything from you that seemed to be "trolling" but if you say so....
Sure Jim, whatever you say. Go back and re-read and see if you can figure out why your post was a waste of bandwidth.
As far as insults, I find your belief(spelling Jim, spelling) system beneath contempt, so understand that I am holding back the majority of how I feel when I read your drivel.
BTW, a statement of fact is NOT an insult or personal attack. It is your thin skin that disallows you from the comprehension of that fact.<---Not an insult
What ever you say. We know you are beyound reproch and perfect. OH Great one!!![}:)]
I am so hurt that you find my veiws so comtemptous to you!!![:0]
You are spot on.[^]
The second amendment is 100% self defence, against enemies both foreign and DOMISTIC, individually and collectively.
But in the REAL world we have to deal with those who do not see it this way, and/or have slightly different opinions on this subject. In other words we do not have the authority to 'make it so'.
So, where do we go from here to deal with the DOMISTIC enemy we face?????????[:(!]
Wha...?
Read the Declaration of Independence, Jim.
You have no clue what authority we have been given. Because new amierica does not acknowledge it due to the reponsibilty in entails, does not mean we have abdicated it it. Simply put, we are the boss, and we need to figure it out, quickly. It's the "responsibility" part that the lazy "new amercans" do not want to accept.
Red herrings everywhere you look in this thread
originally posted by Jim Rau:
But in the REAL world we have to deal with those who do not see it this way, and/or have slightly different opinions on this subject. In other words we do not have the authority to 'make it so'.
Really Jim? Read on.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Not only do we have the authority, but the DUTY to do just that.
If the Founders were present today, they would no doubt be highly disappointed at the sheer number of folks in this country whose spines seem to be constructed of jell-o.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Have some compassion man!
Sorry, I'm fresh out. If he wants compassion, he can find it in the dictionary somewhere between 'cojones' and 'compromise'[:(!]
I can always count on you to prove my point. Thanks again.And I don't need your compassion, but you need the compassion of the rest of world.
I have to laugh at you guys. When you talks about the 'Founders' as if they were Gods!
This couldn't be further from the truth. They were the rich elitist politicians of the day. The process was a circus to say the least. Many threatened to pull out and not support the process and the newly formed government. The ridged close minded selfish people, not unlike you guys, are the ones who nearly doomed the process. But those who were open minded and were good mediators, like me, where the ones who saved the process and got the job done. But I guess these are facts you chose to ignore because the truth would make your 'Gods' less acceptable to you.
I am not saying they did not get it done and considering the circumstance, they did a good job, NOT A PERFEECT JOB!!
By the way wolf, how many 'individuals' owned and kept 'cannons' in their homes??? Is the BOR's about individual rights or collective/states rights????[;)]
I can always count on you to prove my point. Thanks again.
Jim,
I can always count on you to prove mine. Thanks again.
And I don't need your compassion, but you need the compassion of the rest of world.
No, no I do not. BTW, what's with the 'world' comment? Last time I checked, we, as in 'America', are a sovereign Nation. Are you suggesting we need the "world's" approval for our RTKBA? Careful Jim; you are beginning to sound like a globalist.
I have to laugh at you guys. When you talks about the 'Founders' as if they were Gods!
No Jim, not gods. Just very wise, brave men. Damn few left.
This couldn't be further from the truth. They were the rich elitist politicians of the day. The process was a circus to say the least. Many threatened to pull out and not support the process and the newly formed government. The ridged close minded selfish people, not unlike you guys, are the ones who nearly doomed the process.
You, evidently, are no student of history.
But those who were open minded and were good mediators, like me, where the ones who saved the process and got the job done.
I have never seen you, Jim, but I can surmise you are blessed with long arms to facilitate patting yourself on the back.
But I guess these are facts you chose to ignore because the truth would make your 'Gods' less acceptable to you.
I am not saying they did not get it done and considering the circumstance, they did a good job, NOT A PERFEECT JOB!!
I never stated they did a 'perfect' job, but what they gave us is, IMO, the best system on Earth WHEN IT IS ADHERED TO. Folks need to simply accept what they gave us as is, instead of trying to pervert it, and coerce the rest of us into believing in a distorted, convoluted, watered-down version of liberty.
By the way wolf, how many 'individuals' owned and kept 'cannons' in their homes??? Is the BOR's about individual rights or collective/states rights????
And once again, Mr. Rau shows his true colors.
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!![V]
Well Shane, I don't need or want a pat on the back. Unlike you and your 'brethren' who live just to attack and put down people who do not see eye to eye with them then pat each other on the back for being a bully. I have been fighting with people like you and other 'union/bully' types my whole life and will continue the fight as long as there are those who like to think they are better the rest and get in your face about it![:(!]
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!![V]
Apparently pot has met kettle and the introduction went over his head.
Fine, Jim, here's some realism for you. You are a compromiser, and are proud of that fact that and the fact that you will not change. You define closed-mindedness.
Attempts to engage you on specifics fall flat, as you retreat to the 'I am a realist mantra.'
The law of the land is 'shall not be infringed.' You support and defend laws that are infringements because 'it is reality'. If that sell-out is what it takes to be a realist, I want no part of it.
Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.
Brad Steele